"Personalism (Pudgalavada) was a remarkable and durable aspect of an important part of early Buddhism. For more than ten centuries it was taught and defended by several schools and had numerous followers but was strongly criticised by other Buddhist schools."

From: The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism by Bhikshu Thich Thien Chau, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1999.

This thread is for discussion of the Personalist School and their interpretation of SN 22.22 The Burden - from the Theravada standpoint of course!

I looked up SN 22.22 on accesstoinsight.com and Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note at the end of the page might be relevant.

...in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

This has already been discussed on Dhamma Wheel in this thread:The 5 Aggregates and the 5 Clinging Aggregates viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6867

with mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

It seems that the traditional Theravada interpretation of the Buddha's use of the term "person" (puggala) in SN 22.22, is that it was merely a lapse into the use of conventional speech.

On the other hand, the Personalists taught that this puggala was neither true in the ultimate sense nor just conventional speech. Also, that this puggala was neither identical with, nor different from, the five aggregates.

The term "person" (puggala) is frequently used in the Sutta Pitaka, including when refering to an arahant. I assume that all such references are understood to be merely conventional speech, in line with the orthodox interpretation.

However, the Tathagata is not included in the eight noble persons.

Turning now to SN 22.22, I do not regard the use of the term "person" as a problem, but I am puzzled by two things:

1. Why has there been so much debate over this discourse?

2. Why does the main text say that the burden is the five clinging aggregates, while the verse at the end says that the burden is the five aggregates?

vinasp wrote: 2. Why does the main text say that the burden is the five clinging aggregates, while the verse at the end says that the burden is the five aggregates?

Probably metri causa, which is Latin for "for the sake of the meter" - in other words, the poem's format required a syllable count for which pancakkhandha fit, while pancupadanakkhandha did not.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Excellent point, Dave, and it is worth bearing in mind for any suttas done in verse (such as in the entire Sutta Nipata and Dhammapada) that the words may have had to be manipulated a bit to get the metre correct. And that some translators "fancy themselves as poets" (as Ven Dhammanando sometimes said) and give rather less than literal translations. Translating verse is tough. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments in his SN translation that he left Volume I to the end, because he was afraid if he started there he'd give up...

vinasp wrote: However, the Tathagata is not included in the eight noble persons.

isn[t he?I believe arahant is an epithet also!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

1. Are you saying that the main text is correct, but the verse is incorrect?

2. Are you saying that they are both correct?

It sounds more like the point being made is verse must juggle both meter/timing and Dhammic accuracy.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

A question for those who have more knowledge of non-Theravada schools than I have.

Is the distinction between the five aggregates and the five aggregates of clinging, found only in the Theravada teachings?

Regards, Vincent.

I don't know if this answers your question (you are probably interested in other early schools), but in Mahayana (as far as I know) the emphasis is on the emptiness of the five aggregates, rather than on clinging. It amounts to much the same thing, if you ask me - insight that they are empty, ie insubstantial, changing, leads to the release of clinging, identification, reification, etc.

It seems that the traditional Theravada interpretation of the Buddha's use of the term "person" (puggala) in SN 22.22, is that it was merely a lapse into the use of conventional speech.

On the other hand, the Personalists taught that this puggala was neither true in the ultimate sense nor just conventional speech. Also, that this puggala was neither identical with, nor different from, the five aggregates.

The term "person" (puggala) is frequently used in the Sutta Pitaka, including when refering to an arahant. I assume that all such references are understood to be merely conventional speech, in line with the orthodox interpretation.

Theravadins would just write off the idea of a puggala which is not separate from but not different than the 5 aggregates as a mere concept, nothing other than mere concept, just like all other concepts. Nama and rupa arise, not-self, conditioned along by 24 paccaya (conditions). This would explain how the "puggala" goes from life to life and so on. However, the Puggalavadins, not following such an Abhidhamma scheme which is meant to explain such things while having a person keep right view, imo, felt the need to explain things away with this kind of proliferation that actually makes much less sense than the Theravada explanation does, imo. Past and future doesn't exist, so why the need to explain away realities that arose in the past or may arise in the future, just need to know those at this exact moment and the conditions that keep them arising again and again in a sequence.

We all know that the arahant has eliminated the view of self, and yet he is called a person, not just in this Sutta but elsewhere, for example the eight noble persons. Why the debate about this Sutta?

If you mean that the Personalists regarded this "person" as a self, then I would not agree with you. They applied the term to the arahant who has eliminated the view of self, as we find also in the Sutta Pitaka.

The disputes between the Schools was over the meaning of the term puggala.

vinasp wrote:The puggala is closer to the conceit "I am" than to the "self".

The notion ‘I am’ (asmimāna) is synonymous with the viewpoint of self (attato samanupassati). Both refer to the presumption of a substantial support of the khandhas, and both point directly to the ontology of ātman in the Upaniṣads.

Who are you?’ said the Caterpillar.

Alice replied rather shyly, ‘I—I hardly know, sir, just at present—at least I knew who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.’”

And yet, there are some passages which say that view of self (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed first, and the conceit "I am" only later.

See, for example, SN 22.89 - Khemaka.

Also the explanation of the "four pairs of persons" by reference to the fetters which have been removed at each stage, although this is somewhat later, as no such explanation is found in the Sutta Pitaka.

It could be that sakkaya-ditthi depends on the conceit "I am". So if this conceit is removed, then so is sakkaya-ditthi. But it may be possible to remove sakkaya-ditthi and yet still have the conceit "I am", which requires further work to remove.

There may be a "middle strata" of discourses which assumes that the two are removed together, and a "later strata" which sees their removal as possible in two stages.

While reading what Conze has to say about the Personalists, I found this interesting remark:

"It was clearly a mistake of lesser minds to deny categorically that the self exists. As the Personalists pointed out, it had been said that 'to say that the self does not exist, in truth and reality (satyatah sthititah), is a wrong view'". (33)